Liberals courting religious vote

[scribblet]

How do you like me now - gosh - and here all along I thought it was those 'nasty neo-cons' who wanted a religious voice...

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1650066

Liberals courting religious vote

The federal Liberals are making a deliberate attempt to woo religious groups after years of "benign neglect" by the party, Liberal MP John McKay says.

Mr. McKay, an evangelical Christian, said Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff asked him to start meeting with religious leaders across Canada to find ways of including them in the national discussion.

Observers, however, say the courting of religious groups can pose tricky political questions, and recent history shows Canadian parties have distanced themselves from religion, not embraced it.

Mr. McKay, who represents Scarborough-Guildwood, said this week there was a feeling that religion had become so "privatized" it no longer has a voice in the public square.

"There is a deep feeling in the faith communities ... that they have been marginalized and they have not been able to participate in the debates in society as fully as they might. I would argue that we are a poorer society as a result," he said. "Tommy Douglas was a Baptist minister, for goodness sake. And if it hadn't been for the force and clarity of his moral vision we might still might be arguing whether we should have universal health care."

He acknowledged that there is a fear among more secular citizens that any outreach to religious groups could be misconstrued as breaching the societal norm of keeping church and state separate. "Religion and politics is a pretty dangerous mix," he said. "We don't want to get into a position where we're talking to you because we're only concerned about how you'll vote. I'm more concerned that we have that space there for religious groups to have their say. Freedom from religion is not the same as freedom of religion."

Mr. McKay recently met with Thomas Collins, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Toronto, who has often argued religious people are unfairly pushed to the fringes of society even though many of them donate their time to charitable works.

"It's important to recognize that religious people, believers, exist in our community.... They serve generously, motivated by their religious faith. They give generously and they are citizens and taxpayers," Archbishop Collins said recently. "People of faith have earned a place at the table by their devoted service.... They walk the talk and therefore it would be very odd indeed if their values, which motivate them to do so much good, are marginalized."

Mr. McKay said he agreed with the Archbishop's sentiments. "His analysis would coincide with mine."

cont..

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Politics and religion, nice mix!

[BubberMiley]

How do you like me now - gosh - and here all along I thought it was those 'nasty neo-cons' who wanted a religious voice...

Newsflash. Scriblett's simplistic political stereotypes aren't always true.

[Dave_ON]

I find this to be an interesting move on Ignatieff’s part. It’s also rather smart. I don’t think it’s a desperate move at all as this post implies. I think it’s all a part of Ignatieff’s national unity campaign. Say what you will about him, if nothing else he certainly is consistent. I don’t have any concerns that the Liberals will become a religious advocacy party but there are very valid points raised in the article. I think Ignatieff really is working to make the LPC a big tent party once again. This isn’t a matter of mixing religion and politics; it’s a matter of making taxpaying citizen’s concerns known. The fact that they are religious is immaterial and they have as much right as anyone to have their concerns addressed.

[Keepitsimple]

I find this to be an interesting move on Ignatieff’s part. It’s also rather smart. I don’t think it’s a desperate move at all as this post implies. I think it’s all a part of Ignatieff’s national unity campaign. Say what you will about him, if nothing else he certainly is consistent. I don’t have any concerns that the Liberals will become a religious advocacy party but there are very valid points raised in the article. I think Ignatieff really is working to make the LPC a big tent party once again. This isn’t a matter of mixing religion and politics; it’s a matter of making taxpaying citizen’s concerns known. The fact that they are religious is immaterial and they have as much right as anyone to have their concerns addressed.

Unless those concerns are addressed by Conservatives......then the fact that they are religious is material....right?

Edited June 1, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Borg]

I don’t have any concerns that the Liberals will become a religious advocacy party but there are very valid points raised in the article.

Anything but Christian and it will be promoted with open liberal arms

I think Ignatieff really is working to make the LPC a big tent party once again. This isn’t a matter of mixing religion and politics; it’s a matter of making taxpaying citizen’s concerns known.

He will follow the votes and ignore the west - as any good lib will do - as power is the only thing he is interested in - and for sure he will bail out anyone but the agriculture folks - as all good libs do.

The fact that they are religious is immaterial and they have as much right as anyone to have their concerns addressed.

Especially if they are from another third world country

Borg

Edited June 1, 2009 by Borg

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Iggy is indeed fishing for support at every opportunity. This pace will increase with a positive polling trend.

[Smallc]

Borg

Didn't read the article, eh Borg?

[scribblet]

Unless those concerns are addressed by Conservatives......then the fact that they are religious is material....right?

Exactly - double standards

[Argus]

Newsflash. Scriblett's simplistic political stereotypes aren't always true.

The Liberals have spent the last twenty or more years mocking and deriding Christians and their beliefs, and standing foresquare behind all the programs and policies religious groups hate the most. Their position has been that anyone who doesn't support those programs and policies is some kind of dinosaur from a bygone age, and they have greeted any commentary from Christians with a curled lip and a sneer of contempt. Because the last several leaders of the Reform, aka Alliance, aka Conservatives have been very religious people the Liberals have spared no opportunity to portray Christians as inbred rednecks and hillbillies, lunatics, if not downright dangerous.

Just how do you imagine they're going to woo such people into their party now?

Of course, the Liberals have never offered any such commentary or desparagement to non-Christians who hold essentially the same kinds of beliefs. Because that would be uhm, wrong.

[Dave_ON]

Unless those concerns are addressed by Conservatives......then the fact that they are religious is material....right?

It depends on what you mean by "addressed" their concerns. If you're talking legislating morality, it doesn't matter what your political stripes that's not the job of government. "Because the Bible tells me so," isn't a good enough reason to make it a law. Church and state should and must remain separate. Though they are loathe to admit it, truly religious people, those who have more than a loose affiliation with a faith, are a minority, just like all other minorities. The job of the government is to address as many concerns as is feasibly possible, it is not their role to make morality into law.

A prime example of this, and still quite a hot button issue with religious folks, is the gay marriage law. Here you had a group of taxpaying Canadian citizens who didn't have the same legal rights to marriage as their straight counterparts. There is no good reason a taxpaying Canadian shouldn't have equal access to the same rights and privileges afforded to other Citizens. Marriage is a legal matter not a religious one. You can be married by a justice of the peace and it is still recognized by the state the same way as one done by a recognized religious official. The only reason people opposed this was on moral grounds which is not a concern of the state. Religion has no place in government; this is not to say that those who adhere to religion should not have their concerns addressed. But addressing their concerns does not equal legislating their religious beliefs.

[Keepitsimple]

It depends on what you mean by "addressed" their concerns. If you're talking legislating morality, it doesn't matter what your political stripes that's not the job of government. "Because the Bible tells me so," isn't a good enough reason to make it a law. Church and state should and must remain separate. Though they are loathe to admit it, truly religious people, those who have more than a loose affiliation with a faith, are a minority, just like all other minorities. The job of the government is to address as many concerns as is feasibly possible, it is not their role to make morality into law.

A prime example of this, and still quite a hot button issue with religious folks, is the gay marriage law. Here you had a group of taxpaying Canadian citizens who didn't have the same legal rights to marriage as their straight counterparts. There is no good reason a taxpaying Canadian shouldn't have equal access to the same rights and privileges afforded to other Citizens. Marriage is a legal matter not a religious one. You can be married by a justice of the peace and it is still recognized by the state the same way as one done by a recognized religious official. The only reason people opposed this was on moral grounds which is not a concern of the state. Religion has no place in government; this is not to say that those who adhere to religion should not have their concerns addressed. But addressing their concerns does not equal legislating their religious beliefs.

Not sure what your point is. There really hasn't been much of a problem with equal treatment for tax purposes or some sort of domestic partnership....but the definition of marriage has always been a divisive issue - perhaps more with Conservatives but also with a majority of Liberals. It was the courts who ultimately swayed the legislators. So I'll stick with my original point - Unless those concerns are addressed by Conservatives......then the fact that they are religious is material....right? Here's a recap of some of the goings-on:

Discussion in Parliament, 1999–2003

The shift in Canadian attitudes towards acceptance of same-sex marriage and recent court rulings have caused the Parliament of Canada to reverse its position on the issue in recent years.

One recent study suggests that between 1997 and 2004, Canadian public opinion on legalizing same-sex marriage underwent a dramatic shift: moving from minority-support to majority support and that this support was the result of a significant shift in positive feelings towards gays and lesbians.[22]

In 1999, the House of Commons overwhelmingly passed a resolution to re-affirm the definition of marriage as "the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others".[23] The following year this definition of marriage was included in the revised Bill C-23, the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act 2000, which continued to bar same-sex couples from full marriage rights.[24] In early 2003, the issue once again resurfaced, and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights proceeded to undertake a formal study of same-sex marriage, including a cross-country series of public hearings. Just after the Ontario court decision, it voted to recommend that the federal government not appeal the ruling.

Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights during the same-sex unions hearings

Civil status is of provincial jurisdiction in Canada. However, the definition of marriage is a federal law. On June 17, 2003, then Prime Minister Chrétien announced that the government would not appeal the Ontario ruling, and that his government would introduce legislation to recognize same-sex marriage but protect the rights of churches to decide which marriages they would solemnize.

A draft of the bill was issued on 17 July. It read:

1. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

2. Nothing in this Act affects the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

The draft bill was subsequently referred to the Supreme Court; see below.

On 16 September 2003, a motion was brought to Parliament by the Canadian Alliance (now the Conservative Party) to once again reaffirm the heterosexual definition of marriage. The same language that had been passed in 1999 was brought to a free vote, with members asked to vote for or against the 1999 definition of marriage as "the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."[25] Motions are not legislatively binding in Canada, and are mostly done for symbolic purposes. The September vote was extremely divisive, however. Prime Minister Chrétien reversed his previous stance and voted against the motion, as did Paul Martin (who later became Prime Minister) and many other prominent Liberals. Several Liberals retained their original stance, however, and thus the vote was not defined purely along party lines. Controversially, over 30 members of the House did not attend the vote, the majority of whom were Liberals who had voted against legalizing same-sex marriage in 1999.[26] It was speculated that they had ignored the vote on the wishes of Chrétien, who did not want to have the symbolic importance of the moment undermined by his own party.[26] In the end, the motion was narrowly rejected by a vote of 137-132.[27]

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada

Edited June 1, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Shady]

Liberals courting religious vote, times must be tough

You're exactly right that times are tough for them. Their support has dropped and their fundraising has evaporated.

[Smallc]

They're support is up and so is their fund raising.

[ToadBrother]

You're exactly right that times are tough for them. Their support has dropped and their fundraising has evaporated.

Were you hit by a car in December and are just waking up from the coma now? It's the Conservatives that are sliding.

[scribblet]

Not only are they courting the religious vote, but they have chosen an MP who voted aginst same sex marriage and is anti-abortion/anti-choice. However, he is a religious leader with access to a large community - ergo - more votes. So what do they have to offer religious people unless they change their social policy positions.

Apart from all this, their hypocrisy is stunning.

[Dave_ON]

Not sure what your point is. There really hasn't been much of a problem with equal treatment for tax purposes or some sort of domestic partnership....but the definition of marriage has always been a divisive issue - perhaps more with Conservatives but also with a majority of Liberals. It was the courts who ultimately swayed the legislators. So I'll stick with my original point - Unless those concerns are addressed by Conservatives......then the fact that they are religious is material....right? Here's a recap of some of the goings-on:

I think you got too caught up in the example I was using to demonstrate my point or perhaps I overstated my example. I was not attempting to debate the pros and cons of gay marriage; my intent was to hold it up as an example as this is a highly contentious issue with religious folks.

Any truly rational person who looked at the gay marriage issue from an unemotional, logical and secular stand point wouldn’t even debate whether or not it should be law. The only grounds that were cited against it were either religious/moral in nature or that it contravenes tradition which of course is deeply rooted in moral/religious ideals. Gay marriage is not the only example of this but it is one of the more recent ones. Another good example is prohibition this was largely incited by religious organizations. Gambling is another example of this. Should we restrict the rights and freedoms of others simply because a segment of our society says that gambling/drinking/smoking are wrong? Should we apply their moral standard and force all people to abide by it? That is my concern and that is what religious people must come to accept.

We do not live in a Theocracy; we are in a democratic and secular society and as such laws will be passed that contravene their personal moral code. This does not mean that their concerns and rights are not protected. But it does mean that their thoughts and values are not enforced to the exclusion of all others. Giving others the freedom to do something you disagree with on moral grounds does not infringe on your rights and freedoms in the least. But disallowing others because of your moral code does infringe on their rights and freedoms. Our society may have its roots in Judeo-Christian values, and certainly many of those have merit, but society has come a long way since that time and has grown far beyond its origins.

So in answer to your question no it is not a matter of who addresses the concerns of religious groups. It’s a matter of how. Realistically Mr. Harper since his party has formed the government is addressing their concerns in the way I would expect any government to do so and frankly no differently than did the Liberals when they were in power. This of course is a stark contrast to how Mr. Harper handled these concerns when he was the leader of the opposition and was attempting to build his party’s support any way he could. The motion to preserve the definition of traditional marriage as mentioned in your post is an excellent example of this.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Should we restrict the rights and freedoms of others simply because a segment of our society says that gambling/drinking/smoking are wrong? Should we apply their moral standard and force all people to abide by it? That is my concern and that is what religious people must come to accept.

So in your view prostitution and drug use, maybe throw in gun ownership, are things that society as a whole need to just get "over it" and accept the reality of the situation.

[Dave_ON]

Not only are they courting the religious vote, but they have chosen an MP who voted aginst same sex marriage and is anti-abortion/anti-choice. However, he is a religious leader with access to a large community - ergo - more votes. So what do they have to offer religious people unless they change their social policy positions.

Apart from all this, their hypocrisy is stunning.

I don't think its hypocrisy really, just good pragmatic, political bridge building. It also fits perfectly with Ignatieff’s unity theme. This is good politics and not desperate in the least.

The fundamental difference between the LPC and the CPC is the Liberals never really pretend to be something they’re not. They don’t come out and admit it publically of course unless it’s proven beyond the shadow of a doubt as with the Ad Scam. The CPC’s however sit upon their moral high horse and stand in judgment of what their LPC predecessors did and decry the ills of their policies and then follow suite to a tee. The CPC pretends to be the moral and righteous voice of the poor disenfranchised and subjugated westerners while funneling billions into to PQ and ON. The longer the CPC are in government the less I am able to distinguish them from the LPC of 10 years ago.

[Dave_ON]

So in your view prostitution and drug use, maybe throw in gun ownership, are things that society as a whole need to just get "over it" and accept the reality of the situation.

That's precisely my view though I'm certain your intent was to make that sound like a negative or reprehensible POV. The point is that what a person chooses to do, so long as it does not harm another person, is their own business and truly none of your concern. On what grounds do you feel you have the right to tell another what they should or should not do? Prostitution and drug use are realities of our society and will happen whether they are legal or not. On what grounds can you state that they shouldn’t be legal? I feel the role of government is to regulate these in the same way they do with gambling, alcohol and cigarettes. Can you really make a case to say that drug use and prostitution are any more harmful personally than these?

Gun ownership is actually an excellent way of demonstrating my point. Here we have something that many feel is under regulated yet there is a great deal of potential for harm if a gun is owned by the wrong person. I’m not an anti-gun person; I’m an anti-unregulated gun person. There must be controls in place in our society to ensure the safety of the public. Not just with guns but with all things. The harm comes when there are no rules and regulations to govern these activities.

My point is, prohibition of any kind does not work, history has shown that regulation is a much more successful and, in terms of tax revenues for the government, lucrative policy.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That's precisely my view though I'm certain your intent was to make that sound like a negative or reprehensible POV. The point is that what a person chooses to do, so long as it does not harm another person, is their own business and truly none of your concern. On what grounds do you feel you have the right to tell another what they should or should not do? Prostitution and drug use are realities of our society and will happen whether they are legal or not. On what grounds can you state that they shouldn’t be legal? I feel the role of government is to regulate these in the same way they do with gambling, alcohol and cigarettes. Can you really make a case to say that drug use and prostitution are any more harmful personally than these?

Gun ownership is actually an excellent way of demonstrating my point. Here we have something that many feel is under regulated yet there is a great deal of potential for harm if a gun is owned by the wrong person. I’m not an anti-gun person; I’m an anti-unregulated gun person. There must be controls in place in our society to ensure the safety of the public. Not just with guns but with all things. The harm comes when there are no rules and regulations to govern these activities.

My point is, prohibition of any kind does not work, history has shown that regulation is a much more successful and, in terms of tax revenues for the government, lucrative policy.

Actually I am all for the legalization of prostitution, drugs and guns.

Prostitution..

is the oldest profession of the planet, and a market always has and always will exist for the service. So why not clean up the "industry" by removing the minors, the pimps and the drug indebtedness. Tax them and have them pay healthcare costs and pension benefits, EI and all the rest of it.

Drugs,

have been around just as long as hookers have. Weed itself is harmless, as are its derivatives. The problem with soft drugs is the use by minors, so regulate late it the way you regulate booze and tax the hell out of the stuff. It will reduce a lot of court and police time as well as save a lot of money in eliminated jail time.

Guns,

hand guns are already restricted and the long gun registry is a joke. Why would they not simply have the vendors of guns and bullets require customers to fill out a legal form of disclosure and have been done with it. No form on record no purchase, simple. Again tax the hell out of the sales and be done with it.

[Keepitsimple]

Actually I am all for the legalization of prostitution, drugs and guns.

Prostitution..

is the oldest profession of the planet, and a market always has and always will exist for the service. So why not clean up the "industry" by removing the minors, the pimps and the drug indebtedness. Tax them and have them pay healthcare costs and pension benefits, EI and all the rest of it.

Drugs,

have been around just as long as hookers have. Weed itself is harmless, as are its derivatives. The problem with soft drugs is the use by minors, so regulate late it the way you regulate booze and tax the hell out of the stuff. It will reduce a lot of court and police time as well as save a lot of money in eliminated jail time.

Guns,

hand guns are already restricted and the long gun registry is a joke. Why would they not simply have the vendors of guns and bullets require customers to fill out a legal form of disclosure and have been done with it. No form on record no purchase, simple. Again tax the hell out of the sales and be done with it.

Dave has somewhat of a Libertarian view - as long as it doesn't harm anyone else (in his view), it's OK. Jery, your view on the surface has some merit but is too simplistic and has long-term consequences. With Prostitution legalized, what is to stop it from becoming an accepted career choice? Escort Services openly advertising their wares etc. Youth can be heavily influenced by easy money and if the career is now generally accepted, what's to stop it from flourishing......and don't you think that morality would suffer further chipping away? Gratuitous sex is not a value that society condones and while government has a responsibility to protect individual rights, they also have a responsibility to protect those of the society as a whole.

The same goes for drugs. Many comparisons are made to alcohol - that "weed" is no worse than alcohol. So we're saying that because alcohol wrecks the lives of thousands of people, we should legalize drugs and create the same situation? At least with Alcohol, it pretty well stops there - in general, it is not a gateway to further abuse - except to drink more. That said, alcoholics form only a small percentage when compared to the overall social drinking public. With "weed", which is not your father's marijuana (it's now over 10 times stronger and often laced with other drugs)....there is a tendency to try other, stronger drugs....that's why it's referred to as a gateway drug. Granted, like alcohol, it's only a smaller percentage of users who escalate their habit.....but it's insidious and leads to a miserable life. But if it's leagalized - and advertised - what's going to happen? How do you put the cork back inthe bottle?

So it's not so simple......how do you teach values to children when prostitution and drugs are accepted in society?

[Molly]

'Accepted'? How about 'acknowledged', or 'tolerated', or even 'managed'?

If your kids 'values' are contingent on the threat of a jail term, then you have bigger problems that what is or is not written into law.

-------------------

There are lots and lots of people of faith who 'get' that their only morally acceptable lever is persuasion, and that 'God said' is an extraordinarily weak argument when speaking to people who believe that 'God' is a delusion.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Dave has somewhat of a Libertarian view - as long as it doesn't harm anyone else (in his view), it's OK. Jery, your view on the surface has some merit but is too simplistic and has long-term consequences. With Prostitution legalized, what is to stop it from becoming an accepted career choice? Escort Services openly advertising their wares etc. Youth can be heavily influenced by easy money and if the career is now generally accepted, what's to stop it from flourishing......and don't you think that morality would suffer further chipping away? Gratuitous sex is not a value that society condones and while government has a responsibility to protect individual rights, they also have a responsibility to protect those of the society as a whole.

The same goes for drugs. Many comparisons are made to alcohol - that "weed" is no worse than alcohol. So we're saying that because alcohol wrecks the lives of thousands of people, we should legalize drugs and create the same situation? At least with Alcohol, it pretty well stops there - in general, it is not a gateway to further abuse - except to drink more. That said, alcoholics form only a small percentage when compared to the overall social drinking public. With "weed", which is not your father's marijuana (it's now over 10 times stronger and often laced with other drugs)....there is a tendency to try other, stronger drugs....that's why it's referred to as a gateway drug. Granted, like alcohol, it's only a smaller percentage of users who escalate their habit.....but it's insidious and leads to a miserable life. But if it's leagalized - and advertised - what's going to happen? How do you put the cork back inthe bottle?

So it's not so simple......how do you teach values to children when prostitution and drugs are accepted in society?

Look, it isn't that complicated. These things have been around for a very long time and no matter what society tries to do about them, the free market assists in the survival of these products and services.

You simply cannot legislate against the wants and desires of the people, making these things illegal does not stop them from happening at all. In fact it costs money to restrict the trade, that is tax payers money going to hell in a hand basket doing nothing about something. What is far more logical is to actually do something about the problem. Regulate and tax the hell out of it . Clean up the more troublesome issues with the problem and educate the hell out of the public. This all ties in with improvements to public education. Kids need a lot more than what they are getting in school. Education is the key to the future, always has been and always will be.

These vices we are talking about are mere degrees of the recreational and emotional spectrum of society. There are far more things to do, yet these things being determined to be "bad" are therefore more desirable distractions to some, for whatever reason..

The point is that either none of these things, these distractions are acceptable or they all are. You simply cannot legislate morality. By trying to do so you will create more problems than you can solve. The truth is that having governments determine what is or is not acceptable behavior is and infringement of freedom to the citizens.

The idea is not for government to tell us what we can do and what we should like or dislike. That is a state that very few people would want to live in.

[Dave_ON]

Dave has somewhat of a Libertarian view - as long as it doesn't harm anyone else (in his view), it's OK. Jery, your view on the surface has some merit but is too simplistic and has long-term consequences. With Prostitution legalized, what is to stop it from becoming an accepted career choice? Escort Services openly advertising their wares etc. Youth can be heavily influenced by easy money and if the career is now generally accepted, what's to stop it from flourishing......and don't you think that morality would suffer further chipping away? Gratuitous sex is not a value that society condones and while government has a responsibility to protect individual rights, they also have a responsibility to protect those of the society as a whole.

The same goes for drugs. Many comparisons are made to alcohol - that "weed" is no worse than alcohol. So we're saying that because alcohol wrecks the lives of thousands of people, we should legalize drugs and create the same situation? At least with Alcohol, it pretty well stops there - in general, it is not a gateway to further abuse - except to drink more. That said, alcoholics form only a small percentage when compared to the overall social drinking public. With "weed", which is not your father's marijuana (it's now over 10 times stronger and often laced with other drugs)....there is a tendency to try other, stronger drugs....that's why it's referred to as a gateway drug. Granted, like alcohol, it's only a smaller percentage of users who escalate their habit.....but it's insidious and leads to a miserable life. But if it's leagalized - and advertised - what's going to happen? How do you put the cork back inthe bottle?

So it's not so simple......how do you teach values to children when prostitution and drugs are accepted in society?

I understand your POV quite well as it was the environment I was raised in. However, as I became an adult I rejected this type of attitude toward society. I understand that you want to teach your children a certain set of values and so you should. When your children grow up, whether you like it or not, they will form their own opinions about the world as I did. It may be the same as yours or it may be vastly different.

I guess my central point is, that try as we might, outlawing, prostitution and drugs has not made them go anywhere nor has it prevented the great harm that can be caused by them. However, if we were to legalize these things we as a society would have a great deal more control over how it is run.

I understand your point that you can’t put the cork back in, but realistically the bottle was uncorked long before you or I was born. If people want to get into drugs or prostitution they are going to do so. Laws will not stop them. People will always do what they want. The best we can hope for is regulation as clearly heretofore prohibition has been vastly ineffective.

Honestly, if we look at these vices for what they really are, the issue is not the thing itself that is causing society’s ills. It’s the addiction that humans develop that destroys lives. One can become addicted to any number of things, for any number of reasons. There are food addicts, sex addicts, porn addicts, video game addicts, gambling addicts, alcoholics, and the list goes on and on. Any one of these things can cause great trouble in the lives of those that are dependent on them. However that doesn’t mean we should outlaw them simply because there is the chance that, as you mentioned, a small percentage of people become dependent on them. Instead we should be teaching moderation in all things, excess in any aspect is not healthy.

Would we not be getting more bang for our buck if we funneled the money we spend on busting pot dealers on rehab clinics for drug addicts? Would not education on these matters be a much better endeavor? Making these things legal does not prevent us from teaching our values to our children, in the very same way that making them illegal does not prevent our children from learning about their availability. IMV we as a society would be further ahead if we put our energy into helping those who want our help to beat an addiction than attempting to prevent those from doing something who don’t want our help. The human will cannot be contained by law, and you can’t force someone to do or not do something no matter how hard you try.